Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
SHOW
Cavuto 12
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 76
FBC 65
CNNW 50
CSPAN 37
CSPAN2 33
CNBC 26
SFGTV 25
CURRENT 20
KNTV (NBC) 15
KPIX (CBS) 12
KQED (PBS) 11
KTVU (FOX) 11
KGO (ABC) 10
SFGTV2 8
KQEH (PBS) 7
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 475
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 475 (some duplicates have been removed)
will also hear from president obama, who signed the deficit reduction measure into law, part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling. first, senate majority leader harry reid and republican majority leader mitch mcconnell will talk on the senate floor about the january fiscal deadline. >> since our country voted to return president obama to the white house, i have spoken often about compromise. i remain optimistic that, when it comes to our economy, when it comes to protecting middle-class families from a whopping tax hike, republicans and democrats will be able to find common ground. president dwight eisenhower, a republican, once said, "people talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. there have to be compromises. the middle of the road is all usable space." so said white house and higher. -- dwight eisenhower. too often, we face off, not realizing that the solution rests somewhere in the middle. i remind everyone of one fact. this congress is one vote away from avoiding a fiscal cliff for middle-class families and small businesses. we can solve the greatest econo
in entitlement reform. medicare, medicaid, these are chief drivers of the deficit. there's other spending we have to cut. >> hold on a second. i think that we all know what the chief drivers of our deficit are and have been. our projected deficit has driven by the wars and the bush tax cuts. entitlement programs don't even compete with these costs. plouffe went on to pin the problem largely on republicans who are not flexible, but he also said this. >> where the big bottleneck is republicans in congress around revenue and how much and where does it come from, democrats are going to have to step up and do some tough things. and the notion that somehow that these deficits and our debt are not a threat to our national security on our economic future is something i cannot disagree with more strongly. there are some commentators on the left that suggest that. that we shouldn't deal with that at all. >> voices on the left are not saying the deficit is not a problem for our future. progressives understand we need to deal with our debt, but progressives don't want to see the burden of deficit reduction p
that we do need long term -- deficit reduction -- that is important to america's credibility. it is important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced, and that means significant revenues and that paying has to go around. that means the wealthy and well- off have to pay their fair share as well. these should not be new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate -- even the foreign policy debate. the american people are on the side of the president and democrats who are making this case. that is not to say that there should not be spending as part as this debate. there has been over $1 trillion in spending cuts. that is a part of this debate that gets lost. just because washington has a short memory does not mean we should all have one and that there has already been sacrifice on behalf of the american people through those domestic discretionary cuts. we are excited. c.a.p. has been a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we have talked about medicare savings that can improve and strengthen the program and address rising nat
interest, the city would go to market today. the once needed the deficit because the cash flow will be positive. and we could potentially not sell the debt out to 20467 2047 and could just have it mature to 2045. and that would require the sf travel to continue to fund the stablization fund throughout the term of the debt. but because we are far out. we have another four or five more years to go. we thought that it was safe to use an assumed interest rate of 6 percent so we can see what the scenarios or what scenarios would result. in addition the ssand the e would be funded from the assessments and not the proceeds from the cods. and the way that we have structured this is the city would collect, we would receive and we would fund that service and all of the buckets that we are proposing here and then the tickets sent over to the med. the idea is that it becomes a lock box that is more secure rather than sending it to them and bringing it back to make those payments. >> just a quick question, how does i guess the two things that i do want to ask in the amendment that we see is
. and in doing that, we will realize in circumstances where we will have the deficits where the general fund will have additional dollars. so we are proposing that in the event that occurs, that if we continue to collect the revenue more than we need for that service, we would fund that med assessments will repay the city for those deficits. the next one is the stabilization fund, we know which hotel and revenues that are volatile, so the city negotiater will travel that will fund a stablization fund for future losses in all losses in revenues. and the amounts of $15 million and the goal is that as we move that portion of that $15 million it gets replenished and so it will be maintained through the term of the cod. in addition, as you know, the term of the district expires in 2045, we are proposing that we sell cops through 2047. typically when you sell bonds >> once they are satisfied this could go back to fund the future development and capital improvement to the center. so if you look at the cash flows, you will see that the number include the med pairs, we are going to use a combination
to solve the deficit standoff, people should listen to this guy. plouffe said this is going to get hairy? >> we want to engage in comprehensive tax reform. we also need to engage in entitlement reform. you know? medicare, medicaid carefully, these are chief drivers of our deficit. we made a lot of progress with obama care and there's other spending we have to cut. >> hold on a second. i think we all know what the chief drivers of our deficit are and have been. our projected deficit over the next seven years is driven mostly by the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the bush tax cuts. entitlement programs don't even compete with these costs. plouffe went on to pin the problem largely on republicans who are not flexible on higher tax rates, but he also said this. >> and so where i think the big bottleneck right now is republicans in congress on revenue and how much and where does it come from. democrats are also going to have to step up here and do some tough things. and you know, the notion that somehow that these deficits and our debt are not a threat to our national security and our econo
back to work, a deal with our deficit, and we will not have economic security for the future. in order to create jobs and fiske our economy, we have to invest in energy production and domestic manufacturing capacity. they are the engines of economic growth for us in the future. we have to go back to being the country that builds things, rather than the one that just consumes goods that have been produced overseas. with that in mind, i have championed the legislation to create a national infrastructure bank. according to a recent report, failing to invest in our nation 's infrastructure could cost the united states $129 billion a year and over the next 10 years. it reads, u.s. businesses added $430 billion in transportation costs. u.s. exports will fall. meanwhile, we are falling behind in the global economy. china invests 9% of their gross domestic product in infrastructure. india, 5% and rising. in america, we spend less than 2% of gdp on infrastructure. it is a concept with broad and bipartisan support. it could help close the gaps. do something about bringing tele-communications acr
to do something to fix our skyrocketing deficit. our national deficit that he will tell you has been going up and up and up like a rocket and spiraling out of control like a something going out of control and paul ryan is just so right and if congress and president obama do not do something to stop the skyrock edding deficit, to sop up the red ink, if they don't do it by new year's or sometimes whenever the emergency is supposed to happen, we will go flying off the fiscal cliff. and not like these guys who mean to do that, but more like cliffhanger cliff on "the price is right" for whom going over the edge is really a dire mistake. beware the fiscal cliff. you will hear this at the thanksgiving dinner table. when someone inevitably brings up the fiscal cliff and how our sky rocketing deficit is a huge danger to us, do not crawl under the table. do not give up on thanksgiving. help your giant uncle understand that what he is freaking out about is not true. it is easy. there are visual aids that might help. look. first of all, the amount of money borrowed by the government has been goi
tonight in deficit reduction efforts. it's a path that is sure to lead to many obstacles from the other side. chief white house correspondent ed henry has the new developments in a time sensitive story. >> in a dramatic move today, president obama seemed to be trying to split the budget talks to two pieces. suggesting he and lawmakers come up with spending cuts next year after they avoid the fiscal cliff, by extending middle class tax cuts and raising taxes on the rich. >> it would give us more time than next year to work together. on a comprehensive plan to bring down the deficit, streamline our tax system. do in a balanced way. >> the president apparent shift away from spending and tax altogether now in a big deal could increase the chances of a market rattling fall off the cliff. since the republicans want spending cuts included. >> republicans are willing to put revenue on the table. but it's time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. >> the president's move came one day after two other big developments, suggesting democrats
? fewer still want to be loved with all the deficit. lou: it's going to have to mean cutting the federal budget.the x >> even if we increase the taxr, rates, as you noted, the top 1%y in this country, 17% of the 37 income is what they make. they pay 7% 37% of the taxes.oug lou: give us your last thought here.ith the >> mr. president, please, please we work with the businessyou' putti community. we want you to succeed. but you are puttingy animpedims in a way to make it impossible. we want you to succeed. work with us. >> i don't expect the republicans to love our budget. compromise is hard. we are going to have to compromise. lou: no spending cuts, what is the deal? that is tonight's "chalk talk" people really love snapshot from progressive, but don't just listen to me. listen to these happy progressive customers. i plugged in snapshot, and 30 days later, i wasaving big on car insurance. with snapshot, i knew what i could save before i switched to progressive. the better i drive, the more i save. i wish our company had something this cool. you're not filming this, are you? aw! camera sh
to the deficit, they say, and it needs to be part of the deficit. the opposing view of durban says social security is not in a crisis. back to our question for our viewers. how would you fix your school system? david in kansas, an educator, republican line. caller: i just want to say i am an educator. i'm not republican. i would make education a completely free market good. i would get rid of compulsory school attendance. --would get rid of taxation a i think you need a wall that separates the government and education, just like we have a separation between government and religion. host: ok. june in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi. you know, the baby boomers got the last excellent, well-rounded public-school education. it was based on the basics -- proper english, writing. for whatever reason, somebody decided -- and i saw a teacher wrote an article on why we have to write all these rules in english, such as "i before e" in english. i thought, are you kidding me? for some reason somebody said, "whatever you think it is, and johnny." it's ridiculous. there's nothing wrong with people un
cuts which is the true source of the deficit problem along with anemic economic growth. and here's one. we just got confirmation that the latest fiscal numbers from the treasury department show the federal government ran up more red ink in october than it did the year before, and guess what? spending went up double digits from the year before. what a surprise. but the white house got one thing right today. it released a study showing that a massive year-end tax hike would kill consumer spending by $200 billion, right. so let's not raise taxes. and in addition to all of this, the joint chiefs of staff is apparently drawing up plans to keep 10,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan past the 2014 deadline. this break a president obama promise, but some promises are made to be broken, and i think this is probably a good move. but first up congress back at work tonight after the holiday recess with now just 35 days to go. are we any closer to a tax and fiscal cliff fix? cnbc's own chief washington correspondent john harwood joins us now with all the details. good evening, john. >> reporter: good ev
of that up, you are still going to be left with a huge hole called the deficit and it will have to mean cutting the federal budget. >> so, even if we increase the tax rates, as you noted, by the way, the top 1% in this country makes 17% of the income, and pay 37% of the taxes. i mean, so, the fair share argument really isn't -- >> up against a hard out here, and i'm going to ask you to give us your last thought here. >> mr. president, please, please, work with the business community. we want you to succeed. but, you are putting impediments in our way that make it impossible. we want you to succeed, we want to succeed. work with us. please work with us. >> andy puzder, thanks for being with us. european nations on the wrong side of the fiscal cliff but the president says america can steer clear. >> president barack obama: i believe it is solvable and my budget, frankly does it and i don't the republicans to adopt my budget, i recognize we have to compromise. compromise is hard. >> lou: more than a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax hikes, no spending cuts. what is the deal? that is tonig
, don't worry as much about the deficit, the revenues will come in, and we have to get rid of the social safety net the way it's been, and cut spending, slash spending dramatically. it was very divided policywise and barack obama won pretty handily. >> a week after the election john boehner, speaker boehner, does a press statement and he says we're not going to raise revenues. we should look at loopholes and deductions. >> one thing that hasn't changed and you can put on as many senate republicans as you want looking reasonable. what hasn't changed is the tea party caucus in the house. they've lost a few members, but they're still a majority and john boehner has to find some way to get something past them. that's why i doubt there will be a christmastime deal. i think the president is going to have to let these tax cuts end and then boehner may have a chance of convincing them to pass tax cuts for the bottom 98% without the top 2%. >> do you agree with that, dr. peterson? that the president will be forced to allow these to run their course simply so that republicans in the house won't ha
? >> well, first of all, i do believe the middle class has a stake and a good, solid balanced, deficit reduction plan. the plan should be what the president campaigned on, namely balance. that means we've got to have a substantial contribution from revenues. the revenues have to come from the folks who have been making good money during the recession. that's folks over $250,000 or some number close to. that the pentagon's got to make a contribution and if there is anything on healthcare, it's gotta be about reforming it, bringing the costs down, not cutting benefits. >> eliot: let's drill down a couple of pieces of this. what do you think the underlying ratio should be between cost cutting and revenue generation. last summer it was 10 to 1 in terms of cutting costs to revenue. thankfully the deal didn't get done. should it be one-to-one? where would you like to see this happen? >> you know, i actually don't know that number because i think the question is i think we need about a trillion and a half from revenues and the
and the white house that set the deadline in hopes of forcing each other to cut the federal budget deficit and begin to address the growing national debt. of the half trillion dollars the fiscal cliff is designed to cut in red ink next year, 80% of it comes in the form of higher taxes. under current law, 20% comes from lowering government spending. this is just the first step as part of a $7 trillion effort to cut the debt over the next decade. that has led some to describe what could be coming as a fiscal slope, not a cliff. whatever geological description you prefer, it is on the map for every american. >> susie: a critical issue in this fiscal cliff debate: jobs. if the government cuts spending and rais taxes all at once on january 1, the economy will lose 2.5 million job sylvia hall reports. >> reporter: in this baltimore lab, dr. curt civin researches leukemia in search of a cure. it's hardly a political job, but these days he's keeping a close eye on the federal budget. you see, the sequester-- the severe spending cuts headed our way in january-- could affect him. if it takes affect,
their course options. at the same time after we did that, there was this giant deficit we felt through the city -- through the state. then it was how we implement these new requirements while we experience these cuts. so school sites experienced it because they got less money than they had before. and why you heard some going from a seven to six-period day to make those choices to support their core program. they have all done these different cuts. and then we had the additional hit of what happened from the state with the after-school fund. because we weren't anticipating that. >> right. >> and i think that the school district eliminated evening schools that we still had that safety net. now we have an awareness and responsibility to reallocate and reprioritize in this new budgeting cycle. to be sure that we are meeting the needs of the students for graduation in the school district. i am not in a position to say 2.7 but to meet the needs. >> this may be a question more to young or the superintendent. which is to say that what we see before us is a supplemental request for $2.7 million. to pro
player in the deficit talks. >> i am really worried we have a probability we could go over the cliff, and that would be catastrophic. not to go over the cliff, we have to compromise, have to have revenue. the problems are real, the solutions are painful, no easy way out. the only way you can do this ifs to have a balanced approach and that is where people are headed. connell: matt welch is here. what do you make of all this, matt? >> there is nobody at the table actually interested in cutting the size of the government. that seems strange to democrats who think we're living in some sort of mythical age of austerity. we had a really good shot. george w. bush used the hell out of spending four years. i don't think john boehner is ultimately interested in it. talkiig $110 billion, the smudge of potential cuts and they're negotiating it away without any entitlement. dagen: are we past the point with no return? will we become even more of a nation centered around our government that does not promote private business? will anybody ever fix this? >> we will fix it. everything is ultimately
, that is .5 percent of the deficit. we cannot get there, get the deficit down without significant cuts in spending. >>neil: the election has consequences and you could argue that a key premise of the president's re-election was i will raise taxes on the rich and he is likely entitled to that, he will likely see that but it is all the other things they are leveraging with democrats do not touch entitlements and putting everything on table it remind me of george bush sr. he agreed to reverse the pledge oh ride -- "read my lips, no new taxes." but the democrats never offered correspondenting spend cuts. we know what happened to him. what happens to those who agree do in the republican party? >>guest: the republican party has to stand for economic growth and it has to stand for the principle that keeping tax rates low and reforming the tax system is the way to grow the economy. i disagree slightly with rand paul. i am in favor of closing loopholes. i hate them. i call them termites in the tax system but we should use that money to credit a first-class world class tax system that stops expo
on the table a proposal that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, that does so in a balanced way, that includes substantial cuts to discretionary non-defense spending, over $1 trillion, it includes revenue and includes $340 billion in savings from our health care entitlement programs. >> fairly unequivocal, isn't it? it's a mixture of pretty substantial spending cuts and tax increases. >> we haven't seen the plan. i haven't seen the plan. i don't think the speaker -- >> are you accusing the president of lying? is the president lying? >> where is the plan? >> is he lying? >> i don't think the plan's out there. i think jay carney might be but i don't see the plan. maybe they have a plan. >> jay carney is lying and he's the white house spokesman. >> no. >> they're lying, are they? >> i'm not saying that. piers, maybe they've got -- >> you just did. you just called him a liar. >> they haven't shared the plan with the american people. paul ryan and the republicans in congress have passed twice now and last year -- excuse me, two years ago as well, a ten year plan for a budget that deals with the ten
there will also be a drag on the american economy if our budget deficit widens out forever, if we're irresponsible and governor doesn't work. left with those four choices, think think -- on the flip side, did republicans ask you to spend any nuts -- i think at this point both sides have acknowledged that there's going to be revenue concessions and entertainment concessions. in fact, if you listen to, it again, i'm not a master of the political art here, i'm in washington but i would say if you had these points of views in a business context, as close as they are, i would say a deal would be in reach. >> you see some fundamental level of optimism from lloyd blankfine but a long way to go with the combination of prief pressure and public pressure, like the president is going to exert before we actually go to the flight of fired. i asked the treasury secretary should the president return to wall street. he it must be someone who understands markets, marry. >> me have 33 days to -- head of all pi he told john harwood. marge i will hates have to go up somewhat. he said that's going to put a drag on the
will have the deficits where the general fund will have additional dollars. so we are proposing that in the event that occurs, that if we continue to collect the revenue more than we need for that service, we would fund that med assessments will repay the city for those deficits. the next one is the stabilization fund, we know which hotel and revenues that are volatile, so the city negotiater will travel that will fund a stablization fund for future losses in all losses in revenues. and the amounts of $15 million and the goal is that as we move that portion of that $15 million it gets replenished and
waste, increasing efficiency, decreasing the budget deficit, and real focus that we appreciate in northern california on clean energy. for example, moving the state's goal to be 33% clean energy producing. it is my privilege to welcome governor brown to the panel. [applause] >> and to introduce our next panelist, i would like to welcome steve ballmer, senior bp -- vp. >> good morning and thank you. next up is governor hickel lipper -- hickenlooper. he is the serieaal a entreprener each of you have in your respective parts. he became very successful in the brew pub business. he never had a single election not even for stink -- a student council. governor? [applause] in keeping with the discussion, he is keen on innovation and things of that nature. i know that will come out. thank you, governor. >> are we all set? i am from the "mercury news," and we're here because we live in a global cloueconomy. it has altered local economies because so many manufacturing and technology jobs are moving, whether it is a matter of costs for going where the trained work force is. we're fortunate
will be speaking about the so-called fiscal cliff and that is a reduction -- and deficit reduction. we will have that live here on c-span at 11:30 a.m. eastern. over at the white house today, president obama is meeting with small business owners. at 12:30, jay carney will hold a press briefing and take questions from reporters. this afternoon, the president and vice president will meet with the mexican president who takes office december 1. the press briefing today at 12:30. on capitol hill, the house of representatives returns today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on their agenda this afternoon five bills including a measure requiring the department of a homeland security to report on security. later this week, a student visa program. also this week, the democratic leadership elections. that will be coming up later this week. live coverage of the house at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a number of senators have been meeting with u.n. ambassador susan rice in the wake of her comments following the attack on the benghazi consulate. just wrapping up is a brief news conference and statement with senators. here is a look.
clout with congress. the goal: a sweeping deficit agreement to avert $650 billion in spending cuts and tax increases at the start of 2013. from the white house came word that president obama will try to build public pressure on congress to raise taxes on the wealthy and prevent tax hikes for everyone else. white house spokesman jay carney. >> well, the president believes very strongly that the american people matter in this debate. because this debate is about them. the question of whether or not taxes go up on 98% of american tax payers is a very important to ordinary americans. it is not just a matter for discussion between the president and the senate minority leader. or other congressional leaders. >> brown: to that end the president met privately today with small business owners. on friday he'll travel to the philadelphia area to speak further on the issue. not to be outdone, house republicans said they'll meet with small business owners and workers in their districts arguing against the president's plan. in the senate republican my ontario leader mitch mcconnell dismissed the
to have full employment, given that? we did not have large budget deficits. what makes it so much harder? and it's adding up. it gives the persistent trade deficit. we used to not have one and now we do, and it is a big drag on the economy. the trade deficit is significantly down. we have had some -- the u.s. has actually become more competitive, but that's a front on which we need to work. there is a -- the trouble is the political debate has not kept up with the reality. at it all about china. actually, china is no longer the core of that. it's a much broader set of countries. those need to be work on. i hope the next president, instead of not just crude china bashing but what to do to have a world that is no -- we don't have everybody trying to run a trade surplus, which the germans believe is possible but the rest of us don't. then the issue of trade and income inequality, and a lot of -- used to be we traded with countries that were similar. and that presumably had relatively effect on income. if you make -- if you send auto parts to canada and conditioned sends assembled cars back
when people first signed that pledge, the federal budget deficit was $220 billion. this year, $1.1 trillion, how can you say nothing has changed? >> lots have changed. bush focused not on spending. the pledge only does certain things. the pledge makes tax increases more difficult at the state level, at the national level. you haven't had a republican vote for income tax since 1990 when bush threw away his presidency. 1993 tax increase, only on democratic votes. then no tax increases until 2009 when obama came in and raised taxes with obamacare. >> isn't this -- you are having republican is take a difficult pledge to cut taxes, isn't that like a quarterback saying they like taxes? >> it's a pledge not to increase taxes. people say why don't you toughen it. you don't want to change it because it is a simple guardrail. it doesn't solve the world's problems, it says no net tax increase. >> in your mind when someone signs it, how long are they committed to it? >> in writing when the person signs it as long as you are a congressman or senator. >> you are signing this for life? >> unles
with the deficit and that will mean cutting the federal budget. >> eventh if increase the taxe rates, the top 1% maken timbersf 17 percent of the incoming and a 37% of the taxes. lou: give us your lasthot thought. >> mr. president, pleaseplease mr. president, please, workbusi with the bneusiness community. b we want you to work with us i but you put impediments in our way. work with us. please work with us. lou: european nations on the wrong side of the fiscal cliff but the president says ameritech and steer clear. >> i recognize we have to compromise. >> $1.5 trillion of tax hikes but no spending cuts? hikes but no spending cuts? "chalk talk."omcu core of my portfolio. hikes but no spending cuts? "chalk talk."omcu what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of yr portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possibl
. let's face it. it's a revenue problem. by definition, a deficit exists because you spend too much, and the president who is the leader of the country, you know, claims that the problem can all be solved by adding more revenue, which seems to me, a fundamental problem because you can keep adding money to the problem, but if the growth grows at such an exponential rate, you don't stop it. nevermind the deficit, you'll never come close to tackling the debt if there's not leadership from the white house on this issue. >> reporter: steven, you covered the issues, and you have for a very long time with distinction. at some point, it seems we're on a carosel of complaints and empirical evidence that does not change and the argument does not change. that is, we have a trillion dollar problem in terms of the deficit, a $16 trillion problem in terms of the debt, and we've got two parties that for all the world are acting as though we think we got 300 million americans in the country too dumb to understand what they've got to do. the only people who don't seem to get it are the republicans a
social security off the table for the current fiscal cliff and deficit discussion, but be very honest about what we're going to achieve in the near term. >> reporter: republicans pushed back, arguing social security is part of the deficit problem because it is no longer taking in enough in taxes to cover the benefits it pays out. social security makes up the difference by cashing in special treasury bonds it holds in its trust fund. but conservatives point out the money to redeem those bonds comes from taxpayers. >> it is money that is coming out of general revenue that is going into social security that reduces the amount of revenue that is available for everything from aircraft carriers and roads to environmental issues. >> reporter: legally, social security is off-budget, meaning its cash flow is not considered part of the budget deficit. and defenders argue the money used to pay off the special treasury bonds in the social security trust fund are no different than the money owed to any other bond holder. >> we're using social security as a piggy bank to deal with the problems in t
the deadlines we're facing on taxes and deficits. these deadlines are going to be coming up very soon in the coming weeks. but today's important because i want to make sure everybody understands this debate is not just about numbers. it's a set of major decisions that are going to affect millions of families all across this country in very significant ways. and their voices, the voices of the american people, have to be part of this debate. and so i asked some friends of mine here to join me, some folks from here in the area. our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. that kind of agreement would be good for our businesses, it would be good for our economy, it would be good for our children's future. and i believe that both parties can agree on a framework that does that in the coming weeks. in fact, my hope is to get this done before christmas. but -- the place where we already have in theory at least complete agreement, right now, is on middle-class taxes. and as i've said before, we have two choices. if congre
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 475 (some duplicates have been removed)